If a troll owns the company he can also "owns" the person in the company that owns the patents. So the troll funds the action and collects the proceeds at the end. It might be a bit more fair in that the owner might get more in the end but the result will still be the same as it doesn't address these fundamental problems
1) many patents are awarded when they clearly shouldn't be 2) many pattens are too broad 3) it is almost impossible for anyone to know if they are in violation of some patent. The later is most frustrating and it is exacerbated by the other 2. in the last podcast we heard that a review Oracle's 21 patents lead to 17 of them being knocked down. Meaning, >75% of the patents Oracle agreed to use to try their case with should never have been granted in the first place. Consider this, I doubt that Oracle would have agreed to Google cherry picking patents that they new they could knock down which means Oracle considered these patents to be the most important ones and the ones that would stand up. And they scored 25% on picking viable patents. I don't know about anyone else but I find this stat astounding! More than 75% of the patents Oracle allowed to be used in this case were granted because the patent office failed to recognize that they shouldn't have been. Meaning, the patent office was wrong >75% of the time. How many of you could keep your job when you were wrong 75% of the time? Seriously! If this is representative of what has been patented.... this is beyond broken. Clearly the patent office needs help. In fact if you *don't* help there is no reason for them *not* to issue the patent. This was the case when a group of us managed to convince Microsoft to withdraw a bundle of applications that if awarded would have placed project BlueJ in jeopardy. Now some might claim that this means the system works. After all, 17 patents no longer exist that shouldn't have existed. But it's just too little too late. What about the patents that haven't been challenged for one reason or another. Are 75% of them invalid also? Don't forget, these are 75% of Oracle's "best" patents. If the patent office makes a mistake, they should be made to be responsible to fix it. Simply awarding a patent and then leaving it up to the courts to sort it out if the patent office made a mistake simply isn't working. The litigation should be moved to a different arbitration/review process. And the patent office needs to bear some of the responsibility for this mess. Regards, Kirk On Aug 10, 2011, at 6:45 AM, Cédric Beust ♔ wrote: > On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 9:41 PM, Reinier Zwitserloot <reini...@gmail.com> > wrote: > Non-transferable is even worse. That does absolutely nothing to the patent > trolls but hurts the very rare Joe Inventor quite a bit. You can buy a > company and leave that company intact, injecting whatever lawyer power you > need for that company to start the court cases. > > Do explain. Let's say there is a 3 year deadline and no transfer right. A > company or an inventor comes up with an idea and patents it. > > How does a patent troll take advantage of that patent? > > -- > Cédric > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "The Java Posse" group. > To post to this group, send email to javaposse@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > javaposse+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to javaposse@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to javaposse+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
